You currently have javascript disabled. Several functions may not work. Please re-enable javascript to access full functionality.

Track 1 is smaller on the disc than it is in the image file.

Started by
e5frog
, Apr 11 2010 10:20 PM

Forum Rules

Read the Guides forum if you don't know how to do something. If you have a question or a problem, check the FAQ and use the Search to see if you can find the answer for yourself. If you're having trouble burning double layer media, read Here.Still stuck? Create a new thread and describe your issue in detail.Make sure you include a copy of the program's log in your post. No log =

I "solved the problem" by mounting the iso with WinISO and then re-rip it with CloneDVD2 also removing a 22 second intro with the irritating warning-text that can usually not be skipped. Unfortunately I decided to burn it directly instead of making an image and burn with imgburn again so I don't have an image to compare with - so I can't really say it's OK... The two first attempts may work in the DVD-player anyway as far as I know.

It's a brand new burner, I have burnt maybe five or six discs and the firmware is the latest version as far as I can determine.

Here's the 8x burn that I ran the whole verifying process on, ended up with 14 errors:

EDIT:BTW, is it common that discs of the same brand and in the same package are of different sizes, the first disc has "Destination Media Sectors: 2 297 888" and the second "Destination Media Sectors: 2 298 496" that's about 1MB difference (1245184 bytes). I haven't noticed earlier so I don't know how it usually is.

The issue you have there is that the 2nd image is a multiple of 16 (which is a good thing). All the sizes are correct for that.

The first image was 1 sector over being a multiple of 16 and I'm wondering if the LTS (Logical Track Size) was being rounded down for some reason rather than being rounded up. The LRA (Last Recorded Address) is correct.

You'd need to burn one where it's NOT a multiple of 16 (or close to it) to see what your drive likes to do in these situations.

i.e. try burning 1903237 sectors to a disc.

If you have a DVD-RW, try burning 1903233 sectors again in discovery mode on that and post the disc info. If the LTS and LRA are the shown to tbe the same value, then try 1903237 sectors and see what the values say for that.

In theory, LTS should either be 1903237 or it'll be rounded up to 1903248. LRA should be 0 or 1903236.

Please don't PM me with questions that should be posted in the forum. I won't reply - Especially if you have post count of 0!!!

Replies to posts belong in the forum where everyone can read them. Please don't PM them.

In fact, don't PM me at all unless it's something I've asked to be told about!

My conclusion is that PowerISO does a better job than imgburn (but a lot slower) since I end up with a disc with no errors.If one program seems to burn the iso perfect and another does not, I think it's an easy way out blaming it on the firmware. I believe it's imgburn that can't handle my drive very well. I know near to nothing about standards and so regarding DVD-burning, but is imgburn following set standards?

I'll also test what you suggested...

EDIT: According to http://www.firmwarehq.com/Samsung/SH-S222A/files.html there's another firmware called ID01 that was released the same date as my SB02 firmware, any chance it would behave differently? Why do they release two different firmwares at the same time for the same burner?

ImgBurn did not build the ISO from your initial log, it too always creates images that are a multiple of 16 sectors (and your first one is not).

I can see where you're coming from but you're not in a position to blame anything (or tell me I can't blame firmware for reporting obviously incorrect values) - you don't have the background technical knowledge for it.

You might even find that if you locate your original disc again (from the 1st post) and try it in your Samsung DVD-ROM that it reports the LTS and LRA values correctly as:

-> Track 01 (LTSA: 0, LTS: 1903233, LRA: 1903232)

instead of

-> Track 01 (LTSA: 0, LTS: 1903232, LRA: 1903232)

It's essential that you stick with a 'known to be incorrect' disc size.

No there's nothing I can do in the program to change what the drive reports when I issue 'GET TRACK INFORMATION' command. It returns what it wants to return - and what it's returning for that first disc is just plain wrong. Because we're just talking about a single track, starting from LBA 0, the size of the track MUST always be at least 1 larger than the last recorded address.

i.e. take the numbers below

0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

That's 10 numbers - correct?

That's what LTS is.

The last one I've written down is in position 9 (remember that the first number is in position 0).

That's what LRA is.

So we have LTS = 10, LRA = 9.

Don't forget that firmware is just a program too really. None of them are perfect and I'm constantly finding issues with drives from different manufacturers.

Please don't PM me with questions that should be posted in the forum. I won't reply - Especially if you have post count of 0!!!

Replies to posts belong in the forum where everyone can read them. Please don't PM them.

In fact, don't PM me at all unless it's something I've asked to be told about!

I burnt the same iso (with the same burner) with PowerISO that I have tried burning with Imgburn twice with the same error (turning out to be a firmware error rahter than an actual error on the disc), the image (faulty as it may be) burnt OK with PowerISO, verified OK with PowerISO and verified OK with Imgburn when compared to the same iso that previously ended up in two unsuccessful burns. I have no idea why the burnt disc has 1 903 248 sectors instead of 1 903 233 - I guess PowerISO padded it or something before or while burning.

If it's a common fault on these burners perhaps a workaround is possible? Can Imgburn do the same as PowerISO - pad an iso before burning it, as an option maybe?Is DVDShrink to blame then, for not making evenly padded isos? Are the sectors in an iso usually an even multiple of 16?

This is the result of burning 1903233 sectors to a DVD-RW disc with my burner:

So which is the easiest way to go here, convince the manufacturer to correct their firmware, make a change in Imgburn, stop using Imgburn, check and pad the size of the iso-file manually before burning, start verifying with the DVD-ROM instead or skip verifying all together? Again, burning the same iso in PowerISO ended up with a good disc that verifies OK in Imgburn. The two quotes in my last post are information on the same disc, the 1 903 233 sector large image ends up in a 1 903 248 sector write in PowerISO.

How do I report the error to the manufacturer, any chance there's a custom firmware that have this problem solved? The SB02 is over a year old...

Spending another 20 minutes burning 1903237 sectors seemed to work just fine, verifying was OK, isn't that an odd result, wasn't the expected result the same kind of error?

In the mean time, any chance for a patch that adds a solution for this bug, some auto padder or something? Again, it burned in PowerISO OK and the resulting disc was OK when verified with Imgburn. Or some option in the verifying process that handles this error, I'm guessing all the data can be read back?

Spending another 20 minutes burning 1903237 sectors seemed to work just fine, verifying was OK, isn't that an odd result, wasn't the expected result the same kind of error?

Well, it could have gone any one of four ways.

1. Rounded down to 1903232 (1903232 being the previous multiple of 16) (Wrong!)2. Said 1903236 (Wrong!)3. Said 1903237 (Correct!)4. Rounded up to 1903248 (1903248 being the next multiple of 16) (Correct!)

If the drive is told to burn using the Incremental write type rather than DAO/SAO then it seems to be ok. The drive works in the style of number 4(*) if you do that.

* Number 4 is now only 'Semi Correct' though because LRA is 0 and therefore you can't get the real track size (the bit minus the padding)

It's best if an image is a multiple of 16 sectors when burning to DVD because the UDF file system uses something call an Anchor and it's supposed to be positioned in the last sector.

When you have drives that round up to the nearest 16 (which was typically only the case for DVD+R, not DVD-R), that anchor is no longer in the last sector.

Where possible you should use a program (i.e. ImgBurn) that's aware of this issue and builds images where the final size is a multiple of 16 sectors. DVD Shrink is *not* one such program and should therefore be told to output to a VIDEO_TS folder on your hdd rather than an ISO.

P.S. Even just burning 4097 sectors to the disc will give you the same issue in Samsung / LiteOn drives. Seems it's some sort of very general issue with any disc that's 1 sector larger than a size divisible (exactly) by 16.

Oh and no, I'd never manipulate an image like that during the burn. (See the 'Anchor' bit above)

I've put in a little workaround that comes into play if LTS is a multiple of 16 and LTS is the same as LRA. When this happens, the track size is then recorded internally as being LTS + 1 rather than just LTS.

Please don't PM me with questions that should be posted in the forum. I won't reply - Especially if you have post count of 0!!!

Replies to posts belong in the forum where everyone can read them. Please don't PM them.

In fact, don't PM me at all unless it's something I've asked to be told about!

I've put in a little workaround that comes into play if LTS is a multiple of 16 and LTS is the same as LRA. When this happens, the track size is then recorded internally as being LTS + 1 rather than just LTS.

Neat, is it downloadable from anywhere?

I guess I should keep an eye out for DVDShrink then...

Great work there mr "Lightning UK!".

BTW The IDxx seems to be some India release of the firmware as far as I understand, are you sure it won't work differently (better) or will it not work at all with a SBxx firmware drive?

Well, I got a response, they wanted to know in which country I had bought it - why would it matter, I informed them about the drive model and firmware version?Then you had to go back to the support page and write a new message - and that worked so so, first I got an error message and then a pop-up saying "Sending message", no confirmation it had actually been sent. I'll make a new one and include where it was bought, just to make sure.

There's SB03 out for other drives, but I guess they differ so much that they have to make individual firmwares for every drive?

The 2.5.0.0 version seems to handle this differently (not checking it?), so I guess I could go back until the next version is released.... or I could set it to "Incremental" always - is there anything negative about that setting? I would actually only have to use the "Incremental" option when I come across another image like this one.

I asked before but got no answer, what brand of DVD burner should you get to experience the least trouble, is there a specific model. I would need a PATA (IDE) drive.

Yes, they make different firmware for every drive. My tests yesterday were performed with SB02 on my 223F. Today I've updated to SB03 and it's still reporting the same (incorrect) info.

I understand the new Optiarc drives are pretty popular these days. No idea if they still do IDE ones though.

For drive info, you're better off making up your own mind based on the wealth of info available on the Internet. Take a look at the cdfreaks forums, they deal with all that kinda stuff.

Yeah, 2.5.0.0 uses TOC info for the track size rather than the Track info (both are shown in the disc info panel on the right). Using the TOC info has limitations that using Track info overcomes, that's why I switched to using it.

The 'best' workaround for you right now is just to build your images with ImgBurn.

I mentioned a limitation of using 'Incremental' in my previous post.

Also, as you now know (and hopefully understand) the reason for the warning, you can just accept it and tell the program to continue anyway. The last sector that (apparently) doesn't exist on the disc will be generated by the program and filled with zeros, thus you'll probably get a 'miscompare' error in the last sector. Again, nothing to worry about.

Please don't PM me with questions that should be posted in the forum. I won't reply - Especially if you have post count of 0!!!

Replies to posts belong in the forum where everyone can read them. Please don't PM them.

In fact, don't PM me at all unless it's something I've asked to be told about!